So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not
constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if
someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses
it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a
member of the discussion forum - and the bully lives in the City of
Dardenne Prairie or more generally the State of Missouri, which have
enacted statutes since the girl's death. Is that correct?
I don't plan to comment further in this thread. In fact, had you and
Philip not replied, I would not have been aware of it. To my mind, my
stance is a very appropriate one.
On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:
I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to
ban me
from the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable...
His
claim was that I failed to show him the money - that special case
which
establishes that as a standard.
I believe I told you to show competent legal advice saying that
what you
were posting was relevant to the IETF.
I have read your provided material, and fail to see any sign of such
competent legal advice; no name but your own is attached to the
claim of
relevance.
(for those who wonder what case it is, it is
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier>.)
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf